[107] Raffles, op. cit. ii. p. ccxxxvii.
[108] Elphinstone, Kingdom of Caubul, ii. 105 sq.
[109] Macdonald, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xxii. 108.
[110] Cooper, Mishmee Hills, p. 238.
[111] von Brenner, op. cit. p. 212.
[112] Georgi, Russia, iii. 137.
[113] Macieiowski, Slavische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 127.
[114] Wilda, Strafrecht der Germanen, p. 167. Lex Salica, 68. Laws of Cnut, i. 53. Leges Henrici I. lxxi. 1.
[115] Leges villæ de Arkes ab abbate S. Bertini concessæ, 28 (d’Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 608).
But although, in innumerable cases, punishment and judicial organisation have succeeded a previous system of revenge, and thus are products of social development, their existence or non-existence among a certain people is no exact index to the general state of culture which that people has attained. Even among low savages we have noticed instances of punishments which are inflicted by the community as a whole, as also by special judicial authorities. On the other hand, we are taught by the history of European and Oriental nations, that the system of revenge is not inconsistent with a comparatively high degree of culture.[116] We can now see the reason for this apparent anomaly. In a small savage community, all the members of which are closely united with each other, an injury inflicted upon one is readily felt by all. The case may be different in a State consisting of loosely-connected social components, which, though forming a political unity, have little communication between themselves, and take no interest in each other’s private dealings. And, whilst in the smaller society public resentment is thus more easily aroused, such a society also stands in more urgent need of internal peace.